Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Former national security adviser H.R. McMaster has confirmed that his ex-White House colleague Gary Cohn removed a trade-related document from President Trump's desk in the oval office.

"I know about that incident and that was wholly appropriate for Gary Cohn, who was a wonderful public servant and a great colleague, to do," McMaster said during an appearance an event held by Perry World House, reports the Washington Examiner.

In Bob Woodward's latest book, Fear, he reports thatTrump had on his desk a document that if signed would pull the U.S. out of a trade agreement with South Korea. Cohn grabbed it and walked off with it and later told an associate about what he did. "I stole it off his desk," Cohn said, according to the book. "I wouldn't let him see it. He's never going to see that document. Got to protect the country."

1 comment:

This is childish posturing. I've seen the letter. It certainly wasn't written by Trump. It also bears the signature block of USTR Robert Lighthizer, and I will assume that his office prepared the letter. There are three main possibilities to me:

1. The unsigned letter on Trumps' desk was just a reference copy (or no particular importance) that Trump had brought back from a staff meeting, and left on his desk.

2. It was a "brain-storming" letter - being considered as one of several possible approaches toward trade policy with Korea - and this policy was ultimately not selected for implementation. I'm not sure about how things work at the White House, or in the Office of the US Trade Representative, but - in the US Military - if a staff officer is presenting a DECISION BRIEFING to a Commanding General (decision-maker), one requirement is that for whatever decision the briefer him/herself is recommending to the CG, an actual implementation order to put that decision into effect (by the CG signing it) must be included as the last page in the briefing. That does NOT mean that the proposed order provided by the staff officer is the order that the CG actually signs and issues - but doctrine states that such an implementation order must be furnished.

3. It was an actual action version, intended for Trump's signature.

If it was #3, is anyone so naieve as to think that such a letter would not be recorded in a document tracking system, and that its failure to come back signed would not generate follow-up, including production of another printing of the letter, for signing? Does anyone think that the mere disappearance of an unsigned policy implementation letter would cause the underlying policy to be abandoned and forgotten? That is ludicrous.